Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
17 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of collaborative partnering tools. Descriptions of the tools are supplemented by examples from the airport construction project case studies that were analyzed as a part of the research for this guidebook. This section presents the research teamâs primary observations about the impacts of key factors on project performance in aviation construction projects. The research teamâs main observations were as follows: â¢ Without exception, the 16 collaborative partnering tools listed in this guidebook are important for project success. The most important tools, regardless of project size, are highlighted in bold in the following list: â Tool 1: Partnering specifications. â Tool 2: Partnering facilitator (internal or neutral third party). â Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting. â Tool 4: Partnering Charter. â Tool 5: Issue resolution process. â Tool 6: Co-location. C H A P T E R 2 The Flight Manual: Collaborative Partnering Tools YOU ARE HERE Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Effective Implementation Optimal Implementation Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING TOOLS SELECT tools and START using them at the right time in project delivery Manage KEYTOOLS effectively: PARTNERING FACILITATOR and STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Assess and improve ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS to use Partnering Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING and its BENEFITS, and obtain TOP MANAGEMENT support Navigating through the guidebookâChapter 2.
18 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices â Tool 7: Partnering training. â Tool 8: Partnering scorecards. â Tool 9: Stakeholder engagement. â Tool 10: Partnering workshops. â Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering. â Tool 12: Focus groups. â Tool 13: Partnering meeting minutes. â Tool 14: Team-building activities. â Tool 15: Partnering recognition and awards. â Tool 16: Close-out workshop. Sample documents related to the following tools are provided in Appendix A: â¢ Tool 1: Partnering specifications â¢ Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting (pre-meeting and meeting checklists) â¢ Tool 4: Partnering Charter â¢ Tool 5: Issue resolution process (sample ladder and chart) â¢ Tool 8: Partnering scorecards (sample scorecard document) â¢ Tool 16: Close-out workshop (sample agenda) Resources to learn more about all of these tools can be found in Appendix C. In this guidebook, Chapter 2 functions as a precursor to Chapter 3, which discusses steps to introduce and implement the collaborative partnering tools in aviation construction projects with respect to the project delivery method adopted, timing of implementation, documentation, and measurement. 2.2 Collaborative Partnering Tools 2.2.1 Tool 1: Partnering Specifications Overview Partnering specifications are written requirements that are included in a projectâs contract documents and which dictate policy and implementation of partnering on a project. Partner- ing specifications usually inform the selection of the partnering facilitator (Tool 2) and the development of the Partnering Charter (Tool 4) at the project teamâs kick-off partnering meet- ing (Tool 3). The specifications may include requirements or directions regarding the level of partnering to be adopted, general descriptions of partnering terms and descriptions of the Collaborative Partnering process, the organizationâs preferred issue resolution process, facilitator selection criteria, costs, and so forth. Members of the project team agree to follow the require- ments for the partnering process, but their participation in collaborative partnering does not change the legal relationship of the parties to the contract, and does not relieve any party from responsibilities specified by the terms of the contract. Inclusion of partnering specifications in a project contract confirms an organizationâs decision to formally implement collaborative partnering on its projects. The level of detail in the speci- fications indicates the organizationâs commitment to partnering and a higher level of organiza- tional readiness for the partnering process. Organizations that are new to partnering often turn to partnering specifications developed by other organizations with higher level of readiness, using them as a guideline to draft their own specifications. As an organization gains experience using partnering on its projects, it may draft its own template for partnering specifications that can be modified as necessary to fit individual projects. Sample Documents in Appendix A See: Sample Partnering Specifications in Appendix A
The Flight Manual: Collaborative Partnering Tools 19 Case Study Example â¢ Runway Project ($87 million): This airport organization reported the highest organizational readiness level during project construction. The airport had a partnering specifications template that was modified to cater to the projectâs characteristics. This template included: â Partnering intensity levels to be followed based on project characteristics (e.g., the estimated construction budget, complexity, political significance, and project team member prior relationships). â Goals of partnering. â Definitions. â The partnering process (including selection of a facilitator, the partnering steps and tools to be used, types of costs, and responsible parties). â Variations of the process based on each level of partnering intensity. Using a list of partnering facilitators made available in the partnering specifications, the air- port representatives and the contractor jointly selected a partnering facilitator. The partnering facilitator then helped complete the required modifications to the template and implementation of the specifications. 2.2.2 Tool 2: Partnering Facilitator (Internal or Neutral Third Party) Overview As formalized in partnering contracts, the responsibilities of a professional (i.e., third-party), neutral partnering facilitator are to: â¢ Guide the project team in formulating the Partnering Charter. â¢ Guide partnering workshops and meetings. â¢ Lead efforts to distribute, collect, and evaluate partnering scorecards. â¢ Communicate feedback about project goals and progress. â¢ Promote communication and cooperation among project team members/parties to the project contract while remaining neutral on project-specific content. â¢ Initiate and lead turnaround partnering activities, if required. (Turnaround partnering is discussed in Chapter 3). Ultimately, the facilitator keeps the project team focused on achieving their defined partner- ing goals and objectives. There are three types of facilitation: â¢ External Third-Party Facilitation: A neutral, external partnering facilitator, ideally selected jointly by project team members, leads the partnering process. â¢ Internal Partnering Facilitation: An airport, contractor, or designer representative takes on the role of partnering facilitator, whose only duty in the project is to guide the partnering process and development of the Partnering Charter. Internal partnering facilitators typically are used on small, low-risk projects because they are not truly âneutral.â â¢ Self-Directed Process: A project team member (working for the A/E, contractor, design- builder, or construction manager) guides the partnering process in addition to performing regular project duties related to construction, design, and so forth. The project team members create the goals and a Partnering Charter on their own. This arrangement is typical for very small projects (under $5 million). Because the partnering facilitator is required to have a deep understanding of the projectâs needs and goals, the team member assigned to act as the facilitator may change during different stages of project delivery to reflect the necessary expertise. Selecting the right partnering facilitator is a critical task that can make or break the collabora- tive partnering process. Chapter 4 provides further details and guidelines about this tool. See: Tool 2: Partnering Facilitator (Resources) in Appendix C
20 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($150 million): The partnering approach was adopted on this project after construction had already started. An increase of conflicts and disputes between team members had been caused by unforeseen conditions on the site, design errors, and unexpected underperformance by several subcontractors. The adoption of the partnering approach and introduction of a neutral (third-party) partnering facilitator put the project back on track and helped form a more cohesive team that focused on collaborative problem solving. â¢ Airport Project ($155 million): On this low-risk project, the owner representative, who had experience using collaborative partnering, took on the role of internal partnering facilitator to promote collaboration among third parties. 2.2.3 Tool 3: Kick-off Partnering Meeting Overview The kick-off partnering meeting (also called the pre-workshop meeting) is typically considered the commencement of partnering on a project. The projectâs partnering commitments are set at this meeting, and the building of a cohesive project team begins. During the kick-off partnering meeting, the project team: â¢ Articulates the project vision. â¢ Creates the Partnering Charter. â¢ Formulates the issue resolution process. â¢ Sets the agenda and frequency of future partnering workshops. â¢ Sets the means and methods of communication for project team members. For project success, it is important to hold the kick-off partnering meeting as early as possible in the project timeline. The ideal time to hold the kick-off partnering meeting depends on the project delivery methods. Determining the best time to hold the kick-off meeting is discussed as part of the partnering implementation framework presented in Chapter 3. For very large and complex projects, in addition to senior project team members, corporate level executives should be included in the kick-off partnering meeting. These participants may include the senior management executives of the architectural, engineering and construc- tion firms. Including senior management representation ensures that the project team will be empowered to make decisions and commitments on behalf of the respective firms. The tiered approach to collaborative partnering (explained in the section on multi-tiered partnering) ensures their effective involvement in the process. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($687 million): During the kick-off partnering meeting, the project team established the partnering mission to achieve effective team communication, collaboration, and commitment. This mission was reflected in a Roles and Responsibilities for Coordination document that served as the Partnering Charter. â¢ Runway Project ($37.2 million): On this DB project, partnering was proposed by the design team and began early in the process to involve stakeholders (especially airlines) and get their input to minimize the impact of construction activities on airport operations. The kick-off partnering meeting was held at the beginning of the project design and involved owner representatives, A/Es, and stakeholders. See: Kick-Off Partnering Meeting Checklist in Appendix A
The Flight Manual: Collaborative Partnering Tools 21 2.2.4 Tool 4: Partnering Charter Overview The Partnering Charter is a key document outlining the elements and principles of partner- ing that will be followed on a project. This document usually is developed during the kick-off partnering meeting and is signed by all project team members. The Partnering Charter shows the project teamâs commitment to collaborative partnering. References to the document may be included in each partnering workshop agenda and each set of meeting minutes. The Partnering Charter helps project teams align their goals and keep track of them during project delivery. In low-risk projects, the Partnering Charter is used primarily as a means to improve team collaboration, commitment, and trust. In higher intensity projects, the Partnering Charter also lays out performance benchmarks, goals, and objectives for the whole team. A Partnering Charter is co-created by project team members under the guidance of a partnering facilitator and may incorporate several documents that, collectively, establish the following: â¢ The collaborative partnering vision and mission statement. â¢ Mutual project goals, objectives, and key metrics. â¢ The partnering maintenance process, partnering sessions and attendees, frequency of meetings, and communication protocols that describe how, when, and what information to exchange on the project. â¢ An issue resolution process (documented in a written plan that is sometimes called an Issue Resolution Ladder) to help the project team resolve conflicts in a timely manner. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($150 million): A kick-off partnering meeting was held on this project to co-develop a Partnering Charter that established key project and team performance goals. â¢ Runway Project ($87 million): A Partnering Charter developed at the kick-off partnering meeting defined project success and commitment, identified key project goals, established a partnering progress follow-up strategy, and created a measurement system. â¢ Terminal Projects ($30 million and $687 million): The project teams followed the traditional approach of developing a Partnering Charter at the kick-off partnering meeting. The Partnering Charter established project goals, team roles and responsibilities, and organizational structure to manage issue resolution processes. â¢ Terminal Project ($1.6 billion): The project team used its first partnering workshop to develop common goals and âteam ground rulesâ to promote team communication and joint problem solving (e.g., facing problems rather than running away, maintaining accountability of task-responsible leads, and open communication). These goals were updated regularly during the follow-up partnering workshops under the projectâs Maintenance Plan following a process similar to updating the Partnering Charter. 2.2.5 Tool 5: Issue Resolution Process Overview Having a timely issue resolution process prepared to avoid project delays and escalation of disputes into claims is a key objective of implementing collaborative partnering. An issue resolution process is developed at the kick-off partnering meeting and helps teams resolve conflicts in a timely manner. It is a system to address project issues in a manner mutually agreed upon by the partnering participants. It consists of identifying and resolving issues, action planning, and follow-up agreements. See: Sample Partnering Charter in Appendix A One case-study airport developed the following vision statement, which was made available to all project parties as early as the RFP stage via the airportâs website: âReaching for #1, with a mission to âprovide an exceptional airport in ser- vice to our communities.â The Airport is committed to delivering world-class facilities with Exceptional Project Outcomes that meet and exceed expectations.â
22 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices An Issue Escalation Ladder is an integral part of the issue resolution process. The Issue (or Dispute) Escalation Ladder is a document that outlines agreed-upon hierarchical levels at which various types of issues need to be handled if or when they arise. These levels begin with field personnel at Level 1 and go up to senior executive at Level 4. At each level, specific personnel are responsible for resolving the issue within an allotted time frame. If the issue is not solved within the stipulated time frame, the issue is then elevated to the next, higher level. During the project, maintaining rigorous and up-to-date logs of pending decisions and dis- putes also is important because such logs can help identify systemic problems that may occur due to inadequate delegation of decision-making authority. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($35.4 million): This project had high political significance because of its effect on the local economy. On such projects, lack of an issue resolution process can result in an issue growing into a claim, which hurts the reputation of the project. In this project: â The issue resolution system was established in the Partnering Charter developed at the kick-off partnering meeting. â Meeting minutes, in the form of log files, were used for tracking issue resolution. â Partnering scorecards were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the issue resolution system. â¢ Terminal Project ($185 million): In this project, tools used for the issue resolution process were the same as those used for project performance measurement (e.g., constraint logs, variance logs, percent plan complete, and cost control). No formal Issue Escalation Ladder was in place, but responsible leads were assigned to handle the recognized issues, and the leads ensured that the issues were resolved. 2.2.6 Tool 6: Co-Location Overview Co-location involves the design, construction, and owner representatives, and other key project team members, working alongside each other in a trailer at the jobsite or in a field office. Use of shared information technologies such as building information modeling (BIM) software and document management systems might also be required. Some of the many benefits of co-location are efficiency of communication, faster and better decision making, and more timely information sharing sessions. Case Study Example â¢ Terminal Project ($1.6 billion): This project used co-location with two different teams: â The program management team included partnering team members made up of A/Es, airport program management, and many sub-consultant stakeholders, who regularly worked in one large trailer at the jobsite. â The field management team included partnering team members made up of the field team, A/Es, and several representatives of the trades, who worked regularly in a field office. 2.2.7 Tool 7: Partnering Training Overview An important aspect of the commitment to successfully implement collaborative partnering is to ensure that all involved team members are adequately trained in partnering. Partnering train- ing involves teaching partnering principles, skills, and tools to team members to synchronize all the participants about the goals and expectations of the partnering process. When and how partnering training occurs varies across organizations. See: Sample Issue Resolution Process and Escalation Ladder in Appendix A
The Flight Manual: Collaborative Partnering Tools 23 Three types of partnering training practices can be facilitated: â¢ Program-Level Training: This type of training can be organized for all of an organizationâs new employees. By presenting at such training events, employees who have used collaborative partnering can share their experiences across various projects, enriching the knowledge base of all participants. â¢ Project-Level Training: Training sessions can be held separately or as a part of the partnering workshops facilitated by the partnering facilitator. The frequency and intensity of these training sessions depends on team membersâ previous experience of working with each other and their levels of past experience implementing partnering. During the kick-off partnering meeting, the partnering facilitator may evaluate the make-up and experiences of team members and decide whether training is required for the whole team or some of its members. â¢ Participating in a Mentoring Program: This practice involves participating in a partner- ing mentoring program organized by one of various organizations such as the International Partnering Institute (IPI). The mentoring approach encourages cross-organizational sharing of partnering experiences and lessons learned. â¢ Regular Training for Continuous Improvement: This self-learning effort usually is arranged by a partnering steering committee set-up within the organization. The goals of this practice are to continuously improve the organizationâs partnering program, refresh its employeesâ partnering knowledge base on a regular basis, and improve organizational know-how via lessons learned across projects. Case Study Examples â¢ Runway Project ($87 million): In this project, partnering training for the whole team was not needed because both the owner and the construction teams had participated in training sessions prior to this project (e.g., via program-level training and orientation sessions) as well as experience using partnering on other construction projects. As subcontractors and consul- tants with no prior experience joined the team, they were taken through separate partnering training sessions. â¢ Terminal Project ($35.4 million): In this project, partnering trainings were made a part of every partnering workshop, and the training allowed project team members to understand the importance and benefits of using partnering. 2.2.8 Tool 8: Partnering Scorecards Overview Partnering scorecards help evaluate commitments made by participants to each other in the kick-off partnering meeting and partnering workshops. These evaluations are best carried out with the help of a partnering facilitator so that the confidentiality of individual responses is respected and the results can be presented in a neutral and objective fashion. Partnering score- cards are central to the success of partnering workshops in all projects except for those at the lowest risk level. Performance feedback and documentation made available through partnering scorecards can help team members verify the work completed and identify the need to adjust actions to improve performance. Scorecards do not always provide strategies to make such adjustments. Thus, the role of partnering facilitators becomes even more important in calling for the necessary actions to put projects back on track. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($687 million): Partnering scorecards were used in each partnering work- shop on this project. They served the dual purpose of providing feedback on partnering See: Sample Partnering Scorecards in Appendix A
24 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices performance and tracking progress of issue resolution. A change management board met weekly to review, evaluate, and approve all changes that were recorded and tracked via the partnering scorecards. â¢ Runway Project ($87 million): In this project, partnering scorecards were filled out by the project team members and reported on monthly during each partnering workshop. These scorecards served as an accountability tool for tracking performance of project outcomes, partnering efforts, and the issue resolution system. Also, as a partnering recognition and awards effort during project delivery, âpartnering championsâ were elected by all project team members using the partnering scorecards and announced at the monthly partnering workshops. 2.2.9 Tool 9: Stakeholder Engagement Overview Stakeholders in aviation construction projects are key business units at the airport who work with the design and construction teams directly and/or who are end-users/maintainers of the final product. Internal stakeholders belong to the airport organization (e.g., operations and maintenance personnel, staff in environmental systems or properties management, the airport board, or the airport fire and safety officers). External stakeholders make up the remaining stakeholder groups (e.g., airport users and tenants, FAA regulators, resource agents and personnel from other governmental units). The involvement of all these stakeholders might help deliver better quality projects with fewer conflicts, but it is a challenge to exercise collaboration among them all. Tasks designated under this tool include: â¢ Identification of project stakeholders. â¢ Setting up a team organizational structure based on project phase requirements. â¢ Defining roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders. â¢ Setting meeting frequency, purpose, and outcomes. When the stakeholder engagement tool is implemented successfully, it promotes collaboration among key project stakeholders through standardized methods. Achieving full engagement from stakeholders helps to align the stakeholdersâ vision and goals of the project with those of the project team. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($687 million): This project involved more than 60 stakeholders. A modified version of the Partnering Charter detailed the teamâs operating principles, member roles and responsibilities, partnering management strategy, and organizational structure. A dynamic document, this Partnering Charter was updated three times during the project delivery to properly serve the projectâs needs. Also on this project, involving an internal stakeholder who deals with networks and information technology services at the partnering sessions enabled the project team to efficiently incorporate their protracted work into the master schedule. â¢ Runway Project ($87 million): A rigorous stakeholder engagement process was specified in this projectâs partnering guidelines. The framework enabled this process to be flexible enough to adapt to the issues present in various phases while ensuring that the overall project vision was realized. Stakeholder teams were arranged to address specific aspects of the project (e.g., design vision, code compliance, building systems) and were brought together for a short period of time when needed to address specific challenges. Some stakeholder teams remained intact for the entire project.
The Flight Manual: Collaborative Partnering Tools 25 2.2.10 Tool 10: Partnering Workshops Overview Partnering workshops foster stronger team relationships and common expectations around shared goals. Holding partnering workshops during project delivery helps to: â¢ Invite key stakeholders to participate in the partnering process as they phase in and out of the project. â¢ Update and widely communicate the Partnering Charter to the project team. â¢ Keep consistent meeting minutes. â¢ Identify issues and opportunities. â¢ Evaluate scorecards and track progress over time to document progress toward project goals and ensure project success. These workshops also can serve as an on-going value engineering exercise at which the payoffs from various proposals can be challenged and refined. In this manner, not only can the project be kept on schedule, but costs can actually be reduced. The use and frequency of partnering workshops will depend on project risk and the partnering intensity level followed on a project. Tools to guide project teams in assessing project risk and establishing the partnering intensity level are presented in Chapter 3. For effectiveness of the partnering workshops, it is imperative to record the meeting minutes and track progress of the discussed issues. Case Study Example â¢ Terminal Project ($1.6 billion): Partnering workshops and other relevant project require- ments were outlined in the RFP as follows: It is [the organizationâs] intention to use a formal partnering process on this project. The design-builder, their key subcontractors, A/Es, and material suppliers, to the extent they know, will be requested to attend a partnering workshop prior to the commencement of work on the project, and follow-up review sessions. In these workshops, mechanisms will be developed to achieve extraordinary project success, mitigate and prevent disputes, and help create a âworld-classâ team environment. Partnering is intended to establish an environment of cooperation between the parties and will not affect the terms of the contract. The contractor/design-builder is responsible for arranging and paying for the partnering facilitator and workshop costs, which is accounted for in the project budget. 2.2.11 Tool 11: Multi-Tiered Partnering Overview Keeping the senior management informed and engaged is very important, especially if things start to go wrong. Multi-tiered partnering offsets the urge to retreat to corporate corners when problems arise. This partnering tool involves dividing the project team into subgroups: â¢ Executive-Level Subgroup: This subgroup focuses on leadership and decision making with regard to higher level executive matters. A suggested practice is sending a project âdashboardâ (a summary of the project status) to the executive-level team members a week before the regular project meetings. â¢ Core Project Team: This subgroup focuses on project operations and execution. â¢ Stakeholder-Level Subgroup: This subgroup focuses on meetings that are devoted to gain insight and input of end-users and other stakeholders. Each subgroup meets at regularly planned intervals and has a different area of focus to ensure that the project is successful. Creating tiers of partnering helps inter-organizational teams integrate effectively with regard to communication and goal alignment, which eventually makes a noticeable impact on project performance. Multi-tiered partnering also contributes to effective
26 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices workshop scheduling because not all stakeholders need to be present at all workshops. Partnering costs may depend on whether multi-tiered partnering is used on a project. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($687 million): Multi-tiered partnering was implemented on this project, with separate sessions scheduled for subgroups as needed. Complementing this tool, focus groups were created for the partnering workshops to facilitate inclusion of the most relevant team participants depending on the project phase and progress. â¢ Terminal Project ($150 million): Multi-tiered partnering was used on this project, with quarterly stakeholder meetings and monthly executive meetings held on the project site. â¢ Runway Project ($87 million): In this project, which had a medium-high level of risk, daily team meetings were held on the jobsite to address issues in an expedited manner given the high volume of work per day. Multi-tiered partnering was used on this project, with separate monthly partnering workshops for both the executive-level subgroup and the core project team. 2.2.12 Tool 12: Focus Groups Overview Focus groups are project team members who include (but are not limited to) key members of the partnering group, suppliers, subcontractors, and stakeholder organizations, and who are assembled into small sub-teams when systems and processes or work items (tasks) to be carried out by them are active or âin focus.â Focus groups aim to expedite the decision-making process. Including all relevant team members up front in the partnering process sets the foundation for effective focus groups. The need for their expertise and the roles of the various sub-teams will become important during the various phases of project delivery. Industry Example San Francisco Public Works (SFPW) lists âStakeholder/Subcontractor On-Boarding/ Off-Boardingâ in its partnering requirements as a tool to be used on high-intensity partnering projects, which are characterized as follows: with budgets over $50 million, highly complex, politically significant, visible, and/or constrained by new or strained project team relationships. 2.2.13 Tool 13: Partnering Meeting Minutes Overview Partnering meeting minutes are used to keep track of discussions and decisions made during partnering workshops. Each set of minutes should have very well-defined action columns iden- tifying what is to be done, by whom, and when. Speedy distribution, tracking, and continual follow-up also must occur. Effective use of partnering meeting minutes can facilitate effective communication among project team members. They also help keep track of project progress against established goals and the parties responsible for meeting them. In summary, partnering meeting minutes help document issues under discussion, team member commitments, timelines, and issue resolution processes. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($1.6 billion): Important issues identified through partnering meeting minutes were noted as items in an âAction Register.â These items were brought to weekly project team meetings. The partnering facilitator, as a neutral party, raised issues that remained unresolved during subsequent partnering workshops and planned specific sessions to address
The Flight Manual: Collaborative Partnering Tools 27 them in a timely manner. To resolve the remaining issues, the partnering facilitator held work sessions with focus groups or personally interviewed the related professionals. â¢ Runway Project ($37.2 million): The team made general notes as partnering meeting minutes and reviewed them during subsequent meetings to measure project performance. 2.2.14 Tool 14: Team-Building Activities Overview Team-building activities bring people together and encourage collaboration and teamwork. This tool is designed to use resources to get parties working together more effectively in a partnered environment. Through a series of planned activities that are informal and/or informative, teams build skills like communication, planning, problem solving, and conflict resolution. This tool may be used as an avenue for education and training and becomes more important to project success as project risk increases. Project teams implementing partnering for the first time may require more use of this tool than experienced teams. A partnering facilitator may be used to effectively conduct these sessions. Each project team is unique; therefore, team-building activities should be designed for a given teamâs needs. For example, some teams may want more time for team-building activities and to cover the behavioral aspects of the partnering process. For these teams, it may be appropriate to hold the team-building activities in sessions that are separate from the partnering workshops. Other teams may choose to include a few short team-building exercises at the beginning of the earlier partnering workshop(s). Case Study Examples â¢ Various team-building activities were observed across the case studies. These activities included: â Problem-solving lunches. â Integrated seating (pre-assigned by the facilitator to mix companies/roles) in the partnering workshops. â Social time (e.g., a happy hour at a restaurant and luncheons at the shared project trailer) to help team members learn about each otherâs backgrounds and interests. â¢ A suggested practice from the construction industry is taking worker and personnel photos as they work on the job and hanging them on âconstruction wallsâ at shared trailers and/or in the partnering workshop room to help build a sense of ownership and team spirit across all levels in the project team. 2.2.15 Tool 15: Partnering Recognition and Awards Overview Partnering recognition and awards can be used to incentivize partnering teams. This tool acknowledges and celebrates the link between good process management and good outcomes. This connection is important to recognize as it is the management of people that counts. It also serves to point out desired behaviors to team members who are not fully on board. Participating in partnering recognition and awards also can encourage maintenance of project performance records and be combined usefully with team-building and educational events. Organizations can roll out this tool in various ways, such as: â¢ Recognizing key personnel and partnering efforts during project delivery. â¢ Facilitating partnerships at the project close-out meetings, then participating in general partnering award competitions like those organized by the IPI. â¢ Holding their own intra-organizational recognition or award programs to celebrate successful projects and individual efforts.
28 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($687 million): This team coalesced the team-building activity with the partnering recognition and awards tool. Partnering efforts on this project were recognized through regular barbeques, social events, and recognition ceremonies that were attended by the director of airports and staff, as well as many representatives from the design-builder. â¢ Runway Project ($87 million): This project implemented high-intensity partnering. Partnering champions were voted for monthly via the partnering scorecards. This process was very impor- tant to create a partnering culture and acknowledge the people who contributed to spread it. 2.2.16 Tool 16: Close-Out Workshop Overview The close-out workshop brings together project team members and stakeholders to jointly develop a punch list, discuss activation/commissioning strategy, collect and reflect on lessons learned, and recognize and celebrate success. Frequently, it is a real challenge to complete the last 10% of a job. By this point, interests are starting to drift to the next job. Final activities that are key to successful completion (e.g., getting proper commissioning and activation complete, staff trained, and as-built drawings delivered) can be challenging. Collaborative partnering can be of real benefit to projects at this stage. Specifically, the close-out workshop can be used as a way to catalyze the project team to ensure that the job is really completed. A plan for a close-out workshop can be included in the Partnering Charter. Another purpose of holding a close-out workshop is continuous improvement of the partnering efforts of the orga- nizations involved in the process. The lessons learned at the close-out workshop can be shared across other projects in the organization and can be incorporated in future training sessions. Project close-out workshops also help evaluate the performance of the partnering facilitator through a survey involving project team participants. This feedback can be constructively used by the partnering facilitator to improve his/her facilitation skills and by organizations to reinforce or reiterate their partnering facilitator selection process. Project partnering recognition and awards sometimes are scheduled to take place during the project close-out workshop. The decision to combine the two or keep them separate depends on whether serious data collection and analysis need to be performed or if difficult feedback is expected at the close-out workshop. In such cases, it is suggested that recognition and celebration be done separately and in a more informal setting from the close-out workshop. A close-out workshop also is of importance to some participants because it not only brings the project to a formal conclusionâmarking a âhard stopâ in the process and establishing a specific deadline by which time to end any lingering workâbut also provides a useful time to reflect on how the process/project went. This reflection is worthwhile, as it formally carves out a time and place for team members to focus on lessons learned. Case Study Examples â¢ Terminal Project ($687 million): This project was characterized as high risk due to its tight schedule, inclusion of a delay liability clause, and inclusion of an incentive tied to early com- pletion for the contractor. The close-out workshop was devoted not only to collecting lessons learned for future projects, but also to pushing the project to final completion and avoiding unnecessary delays. â¢ Terminal Project ($185 million): In this project, lessons learned were recorded during the close-out workshop. The goal included identifying the best practices for future projects. This practice validates the need for continuous improvement in partnering practices in organizations. See: Sample Close-Out Workshop Agenda in Appendix A